IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v3y2019i1d10.1007_s41669-018-0086-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Long-Term Incobotulinumtoxin-A Treatment in the Management of Post-stroke Spasticity of the Upper Limb from the Australian Payer Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Koji Makino

    (THEMA Consulting)

  • Dominic Tilden

    (THEMA Consulting)

  • Carmel Guarnieri

    (THEMA Consulting)

  • Mia Mudge

    (THEMA Consulting)

  • Ian J. Baguley

    (Westmead Hospital)

Abstract

Background In Australia, the reimbursement of botulinum neurotoxin-A (BoNT-A) on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for the treatment of moderate to severe spasticity of the upper limb following a stroke (PSS-UL) is restricted to four treatment cycles per upper limb per lifetime. This analysis examined the cost effectiveness of extending the treatment beyond four treatments among patients with an adequate response to previous treatment cycles. Methods A Markov state transition model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis of extending the use of incobotulinumtoxin-A beyond the current restriction of four treatment cycles among patients who have shown a successful response in previous treatment cycles (’known responders’). The Markov model followed patients in 12-weekly cycles for 5 years, estimating the proportion of patients with or without response over this period in each of the modelled treatment arms. Post hoc analysis of an open-label extension phase study informed the Markov model. The perspective of the analysis was the Australian healthcare system, meaning only direct healthcare costs were included. Utility values by response status were derived from EQ-5D data from a published double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results The open-label extension study data demonstrated the probability of treatment response after four injections was greater among ‘known responders’ than those without prior response. The incremental cost per QALY gained of continued use of incobotulinumtoxin-A beyond the current restriction of four treatments was A$59,911. Conclusion Limiting BoNT-A treatment to four cycles per patient per lifetime is likely to be suboptimal in many patients with PSS-UL. Treatment response beyond four cycles is highest among known responders, and allowing such patients to continue treatment beyond four cycles appears cost effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Koji Makino & Dominic Tilden & Carmel Guarnieri & Mia Mudge & Ian J. Baguley, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of Long-Term Incobotulinumtoxin-A Treatment in the Management of Post-stroke Spasticity of the Upper Limb from the Australian Payer Perspective," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 93-102, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-018-0086-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-018-0086-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-018-0086-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-018-0086-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & John Brazier & Paula Cronin & Madeleine T. King & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street, 2014. "An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment To Value Eq‐5d Health States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 729-742, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Helene Chevrou-Severac, 2017. "A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-31, December.
    2. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    3. Arne Risa Hole & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2016. "Response Patterns in Health State Valuation Using Endogenous Attribute Attendance and Latent Class Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 212-224, February.
    4. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    5. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney, 2012. "Deriving utility weights for the EQ-5D-5L using a discrete choice experiment. CHERE Working Paper 2012/01," Working Papers 2012/01, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    6. Sanjeewa Kularatna & Jennifer A. Whitty & Newell W. Johnson & Ruwan Jayasinghe & Paul A. Scuffham, 2015. "Development of an EORTC-8D Utility Algorithm for Sri Lanka," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 361-370, April.
    7. Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney & John Brazier & Leonie Burgess & Paula Cronin & Madeleine King & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street, 2014. "Valuing SF-6D Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 773-786, August.
    8. Edel Doherty & Anna Hobbins & David G. T. Whitehurst & Ciaran O’Neill, 2021. "An Exploration on Attribute Non-attendance Using Discrete Choice Experiment Data from the Irish EQ-5D-5L National Valuation Study," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 237-244, June.
    9. Anna Selivanova & Erik Buskens & Paul F. M. Krabbe, 2018. "Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L Health Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 715-725, June.
    10. Ole Marten & Brendan Mulhern & Nick Bansback & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "Implausible States: Prevalence of EQ-5D-5L States in the General Population and Its Effect on Health State Valuation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 735-745, August.
    11. Marcel F. Jonker & Bas Donkers & Esther de Bekker‐Grob & Elly A. Stolk, 2019. "Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 350-363, March.
    12. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney, 2019. "One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 29-43, January.
    13. Chau L. B. Ho & Angela Brennan & Diem T. Dinh & Jeffrey Lefkovits & Danny Liew & Si Si & Christopher M. Reid & Richard Norman, 2022. "Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Impacts 30-day Quality of Life after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Evidence from the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR)," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(6), pages 3415-3426, December.
    14. R. Hoorn & A. Donders & M. Oppe & P. Stalmeier, 2014. "The Better than Dead Method: Feasibility and Interpretation of a Valuation Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 789-799, August.
    15. Jing Wu & Shitong Xie & Xiaoning He & Gang Chen & Gengliang Bai & Da Feng & Ming Hu & Jie Jiang & Xiaohui Wang & Hongyan Wu & Qunhong Wu & John E. Brazier, 2021. "Valuation of SF-6Dv2 Health States in China Using Time Trade-off and Discrete-Choice Experiment with a Duration Dimension," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 521-535, May.
    16. Richard Norman & Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber & Donna Rowen & John E. Brazier & David Cella & A. Simon Pickard & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Dennis Revicki & Madeleine T. King & On behalf of the Eu, 2019. "U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1385-1401, December.
    17. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    18. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Koonal Shah & Nick Bansback & Louise Longworth & Rosalie Viney, 2018. "How Should Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration Choice Sets Be Presented for the Valuation of Health States?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 306-318, April.
    19. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    20. Sullivan, Trudy & Hansen, Paul & Ombler, Franz & Derrett, Sarah & Devlin, Nancy, 2020. "A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-018-0086-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.